The state of the environment is seen by many as an important
issue that needs our outmost attention. Often it is these people who are involved in such
activities as recycling and conservation. Still there are others who disregard the
environment as significant and dismiss personal obligations for maintaining it. These two
conflicting views are quite contrasting but could in fact be held by quite similar people.
You may ask, how is this possible and why does it happen? I propose the answer to these
questions lies in our individual moral codes. These codes are comprised of different value and ethic
systems which, I suggest, function to influence our behavior in everyday activities. It is
this underlying force that establishes our sentiments toward not only the environment, but
toward all aspects of our lives.

There are three value and ethic systems that constitute
human- environmental relations. One, which is known as the egocentric ethic, is indicative
of those who place the pursuit of self-interest above other values. The second value
system is called the homocentric ethic. Here, the good of the human species is placed
above other values. Finally, there exists the ecocentric ethic. It is characterized by the
belief that humans should make sacrifices in order to benefit the entire biosphere. Which
of these three value orientations a person follows
affects their perspective of the environment.

I posit that the adoption of a particular value system is a
direct result of socialization by four principal institutions. Each of these sources of
influence may work exclusively or collaboratively to construct beliefs that are
illustrated in our daily actions. One such source is our parents. Our mothers and fathers
tend to have an enormous impact on most of our lives, particularly during childhood. As we
grow older, peers begin to replace parents as primary derivations of learned behavior.
This second contributor to value establishment can prove to be either positive or negative
depending on who we interact with. Television, the third fundamental designer of values, can also be seen
as either positive or negative. TV shows today are as diverse as personalities. A final
creator of ethic systems is religion. In some cases, spirituality is powerful enough to
hold precedence over any other contributor of values. All of these originators of value
orientations create beliefs that play a role in our particular comprehension of the World.

Throughout the socialization process, new contributors may
appear to alter our perceptions. Although personal value systems are difficult to change,
modification may allow for long term reformation of orientations. This is helpful in order
to show that there is hope for those who insist on viewing the environment as belonging to
humans for the sole purpose of exploitation. Whether we realize it or not, we
unconsciously display our moral codes through familiar actions. Ultimately it seems that
the future of the environment and other global problems may lie in our value and ethic
orientations. For this reason, it is up to us as a society to make sure the future is
bright for generations to come.

The unprecedented speed and
magnitude of increase in the world's population in recent decades have earned the name
"population explosion". The world population is closing in on 5.9 billion people
and is increasing by nearly 90 million a year. The United Nations has projected that world population
will eventually stabilize at a low of around 8 billion, or at a high of 12 billion. Unless
we start taking a active role in slowing this process down, the world will be doomed.

In demographic terms, the explanation for the rapid growth of the
world's population in the last two decades is the decline of the death rate. All the
technological advances made during the Industrial Revolution led to the improvements of
diets, clothing, housing, public sanition, medical science, and popular education.
"It is no disparagement of medical science and practice," said Warren Thompson
in 1953, "to recognize that the great decline in the death rate that has taken place
during the last two centuries in the West is due, basically, to improvement in production
and economic conditions."

It has been noted that unrestricted access to natural resources can
trigger the tragedy-of-the-commons process when human numbers, and their activities, reach
high enough levels. This theory also holds true when humans are given reproductive
freedom. If we allow people to have as many children as they want without making them take
complete responsibility for their care, our current situation will only get worse. People
will abuse the system if they know society will pick up the extra slack.

It turns out that national population-control policies rely almost
exclusively on "family planning". More specifically, these policies set up
programs designed to improve contraception methods and diffuse them to the public. China
is the only country in the world that has recognized it has too many people and actually
had the nerve to do something about it. The only mistake they made was not making this
single-child program universal throughout the country. The one-child policy is only
enforced in congested urban areas. They are still giving the people in the rural areas,
free reign on the number of children they can have. It's important to give China the
credit for taking a active stance on the issue, but they have by no means fixed their
problem.

Our best chance of solving the population crisis is to let each
country produce as many babies as the government decides is appropriate. The catch to this
is that each country must take care of the babies it produces. The United States sending
food to Ethiopia does more harm than good. The more we encourage population growth in
Ethiopia by sending food, the more damage is being done to their production system. The
lands there are being used beyond it's carrying capacity because there are far more people
than renewable resources. If we're going to correct our present predicament we have to
make individuals responsible for their own actions.

Overpopulation is a worldwide problem that is worsening
every day. Between the Second World War and the 1990's, the world's population increased
from 2.5 billion to 5 billion people. The United Nations have projected that, unless
drastic changes occur, the world will be forced to hold 8.5 billion people in 2025, and
around 10 billion in 2050. This is a serious issue, but few perceive population growth as
a real problem. Only when consumption of materials, the environment, and the standards of
living are negatively impacted, does the seriousness of overpopulation come to our
attention.

Religion is often considered the most powerful tool used to control
humans. Many scholars argue that morals, beliefs, values, and religious teachings play a
major role in causing global and regional environmental problems. Religious beliefs and
practices differ, resulting in diverse opinions and worldviews. An important issue
concerning religious beliefs, that has sparked much debate, is birth control and its
effects on the environment, specifically overpopulation. This issue is a part of every
religion. However, I have focused on Catholicism and the Muslim religion.

As of May 1997, the world consisted of 975,937,000 Catholics. This
accounts for 17% of the world population! Due to the large number of Catholics, their
views have an impact on global conditions. The Catholic
position does not allow abortion or any other form of birth control. This has a lot to do
with the Catholic belief that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, and that
interfering with this by means of birth control is immoral. Catholics have always believed
that a human being is destined by God and is created for a purpose. They believe that
individuals are more important than numbers, which relates to their lack of participation
in organizations that seek to control the growth of world population. However, despite all
these beliefs, reports indicate that a large number of Catholic women do seek abortion as
a solution to birth control. It is evident that a separation exists in the Catholic
religion, with those who agree with birth control and those who do not.

The world has more than 1 billion Muslims, making it
the second largest religion in the world. Muslims allow the use of birth control and
tolerate abortion. The Muslim religion believes that the act of contraception is
justifiable in controlling the population, and is beneficial to limiting the family to a
manageable size.

The solutions that I came up with for the issue of birth control and
its effect on overpopulation are incentives, education, and the changing of values.
Incentives, such as tax breaks, education assistance, and special benefits could be given
to families who participate in fertility limiting. Families should be educated on birth
control, its availability, and family planning. The last solution should concentrate on
reworking human attitudes and values. It is believed that only when there is a major
change in values will people involve themselves in activities, such as fertility planning.
I feel that each of these solutions could be useful in curbing the overpopulation problem.

A common question asked when speaking of religion, birth control and
overpopulation, is whether or not religions, specifically those who do not allow birth
control, are to blame for the world being overpopulated. This is a hard question to
answer, especially since we have seen that not all people follow the beliefs of their
religion. Until we can actually live in a world, where every religion allows birth control
and people use it, and we see the results, I really do not feel that we can point any
fingers.

Air pollution is becoming more and more
of a problem in today's society. As cities and industries grow, so do pollution levels.
This increase in pollution level has adverse effects on the environment and on health.
These effects are detrimental to all of the human population, but especially to women.

Air pollution is what social psychologists commonly refer to as a tragedy of the
commons. Garrett Hardin defines tragedy of the commons as "behavior that makes
sense from the individual point of view, that when repeated by enough individuals,
ultimately proves disastrous for society and eventually leads to the destruction of the
resource" (Gardner & Stern, 1996). Air pollution is destroying our clean air.

Air pollution comes in many different forms, four of these being
sulfurous smog, caused
mainly by manufacturing industries, photochemical smog, caused by transport systems and
manufacturing industries, carbon monoxide, caused mainly from motor vehicles and also from
power plants, and particulate pollution, mainly caused by manufacturing industries also.

Air pollution can cause problems in the body for the lungs, the
heart, and even the nervous system. It can also cause chromosome and
birth defects. Air pollution, because of its detrimental effects on the environment, has
adverse effects on women. Women are disproportionately affected by environmental
degradation. In fact, in environmental disaster, women can be more vulnerable than men
(Reardon, 1993). This is due to women's consistently low socioeconomic status and to their
role in childbearing.

Poor women live in poor neighborhoods that are more likely to have
more hazardous environments. This includes excess air pollution. In addition, because of
childbearing, women are more susceptible to ill health. "The biological role of women
in reproduction...makes women vulnerable to lower health and nutritional status"
(Lorentzen & Turpin, 1996).

Effects of air pollution on women in childbearing are serious. Air
pollution can cause spontaneous abortions, still births, birth defects, genetic defects,
infant mortality, and many other tragedies. In addition, it can cause aplastic anemia and
even sterilization in some women (Venkateswaran, 1995).

Some solutions for reducing the air pollution problem include
employing incentives and education, using an upstream approach. Examples of this are
fining for air pollution violations, charging for air pollution, and electric cars. These
possible solutions give people incentives to stop polluting the air, and the electric car
eliminates much of air pollution before it can be produced.

To end environmental degradation's disproportionate effect on women,
ecofeminist principles should be implemented. Ecofeminism is based on
the idea that women and nature are connected. Ecofeminists also feel that the domination
of the environment by man is linked to the domination of women by man.

This domination comes from the patriarchal view of society
that views women as less than men. Ecofeminists believe that this view also regards nature
in that respect.

There are three different types of ecofeminist approaches. The first
approach suggests severing the woman-nature link to integrate women into society. The
second aprroach emphasizes holding the woman-nature connection against that of man and the
patriarchal view. The third approach suggests using the woman-nature connection to create
a free, ecological society, where woman, nature, and man are all equals (Plant, 1989).

The third approach of ecofeminism seems most appropriate in solving
the problem of domination of women and nature. This solution would balance out hierarchies
and create a more egalitarian society.

Because air pollution is becoming more and more of a problem
everyday, it needs to be dealt with immediately and effectively. Its effects on women also
need to be considered. Our population and our future are at stake in this issue when
childbearing becomes hazardous and inefficient. We need to take action to solve this
problem and create a better environment and society in the long run.

Reproduction was once a crucial element for the
survival of human beings. In prehistoric times, reproduction was adaptive and appropriate
when food was scarce, disease rates high, and life-expectancy short. However, with the
development of agriculture and vast improvements in technology and medicine, humans are
living longer, healthier lives. Unfortunately, there is one problem- there are too many
people living longer, healthier lives. The world is approaching maximum capacity due to
the exponential population growth that has been occuring over the last 50 years.
Overpopulation not only threatens the environment but also threatens our very existence.
To better understand the severity of this situation, a closer look at the factors
contributing to population growth is needed. [photo courtesy of Alwyn Jones,
copyright 1997, Facing the
Future. Used with permission.]

Population growth is an extremely complex phenomenon. This may be
one reason why the stabilization of growth has been difficult to achieve. Individuals need
to have a full understanding of the variety of factors contributing to this problem. One
explanation for continued population growth is that is results from a Tragedy of the
Commons process of its own. Couples are driven to have children. They see little
environmental cost or harm in having them. This reinforces the idea that they could not
possibly be contributing to the world population problem. It is this logic, repeated over
millions of couples, that causes population growth levels that are too high to be
sustainable in the long run. Currently, there are 3 billion people (1/2 of the world's
population) under the age of 25. It is reasonable to assume that these people will have
children of their own in the future. If the Tragedy of the Commons process continues to
operate among these individuals, world population could reach 12 billion by the year 2050.
Growth of this magnitude will continue to exert severe demands on the environment.
Deforestation will increase in frequency as well as the destruction occurring in the
atmosphere. Natural resources, both renewable and nonrenewable, will be depleted beyond
repair. If the current trends are not slowed or reversed, the human species may be the
next candidate for the endangered species list.

The Tragedy of the Commons process is not the only influence on
population growth. There are many other factors
that contribute to the problem. One such factor, commonly affecting developing nations, is
the expectation of women to produce large families. The social structure in these countries
encourages women to have many children. For many, this societal norm is the only means of
acquiring social status. In addition, the lack of education prevents women from learning
of the opportunities available outside of the family. Education is made unavailable for
this very reason. All efforts are expected to be concentrated on child-bearing. These
factors, as well as inadequate health care and lack of contraceptive use, make it
difficult to break the current cycle of exponential population growth. [FAO photo
from Facing the
Future. Used with permission.]

Many argue that religion also plays a role in
encouraging population growth. Of the many institutions that seek to influence population
policies, the Roman Catholic Church seems to be the most influential. It is a major
opponent of population stabilization and reproductive health services. The Roman Catholic
Church has been an effective voice in policy making from discouraging the distribution of
condoms to diverting funds from family planning programs. Although the Church has been
successful in the political arena, success had been at most modest among its parishioners.
Catholic women have fewer children than women of different denominations and regularly use
contraceptives to control reproduction, despite opposition from Church leaders. This
illustrates the minor influence, if any, that religion has on population growth. In
addition, religious leaders are becoming more environmentally aware and are encouraging
their members to show concern through proenvironmental behavior. Thus, religion may be
beginning to join the movement to stabilize the population.

Because of the complexity of populaton
growth, many people feel powerless and overwhelmed. They may feel that any effort to
control further growth on their behalf would be useless. However, there are a variety of
ways in which a person can take an active role in stabilizing population growth. These solutions
include:

1) Control your own reproduction

2) Educate yourself and your friends

3) Work with others

4) Support reproductive and other health care programs

5) Become politically involved

To protect the environment from further destruction and to ensure
the survival of our own species, we must realize the severity of the current situation. No
one person can change the world. It requires a collective effort from many individuals. It
is time to take the necessary steps to prevent the collapse of the human species.

Ehren Hines: Social
& Psychological Aspects of the Exploding World Population

A good estimate of the world's current
population is 5,880,538,105
people. This number grows exponentially, and its continual growth is the root of many
problems that the human race faces today. It is estimated that by the year 2050 there will be
9,309,051,539 people on the planet. That is almost double today's figure in a little
over 50 years. The bottom line here is that the carrying capacity of the world is being
exceeded. The options are the human race can take care of this problem, or Mother Nature
will deal with it.

Psychologically, value systems and the level of individual
responsibility are assessed. Ecocentric values are concerned about the carrying capacity
of the Earth and the Earth itself; homocentric values, believe in world peace, equality,
and social justice. The homocentric view is commonly shared by Developed countries of the
world, whom have benefited for hundreds of years from a homocentric value system.
Developed countries are not nearly as responsible for the actual numbers of population as
Developing countries are, but they have had a lot to do with many environmental problems
and resource depletion. A baby born in the United States represents 35 times the
destructive impact on the Earth's ecosystems and the services they provide as one born in
India. It is imperative that everyone of the world except responsibility for the
overpopulation problem.

There are no easy solutions to this problem. However people can be
categorized into three groups on this overpopulation. Those who will sacrifice all
personal pleasure to save the world; those who deny the statistics; and those who know the
state of the world, but do not care enough. Shouldn't doing "what is right" be
all the incentive a person needs to do their part in fixing this problem? That still may
not be the case, you still have to deal with human nature. Howard (1993) pointed out that,
"human nature impels us to deny our own impending destruction and to seek out
individual and personal happiness."

Education should teach: the facts of overpopulation
and all the problems that spring from it, why the human race cannot survive on its current
path, and what specific changes people can make to do their part in saving the human race.
Developed countries need to know and understand that their lifestyles are detrimental to
the survival of the human race. Developing countries need to learn how to deal with their
high birth rates. "Reducing fertility rates is not simply a matter of providing more
contraceptives, but that family planning has to be part of broader reproductive heath
services for women"(Brown, 1995). Every country needs to establish a carefully
thought out policy on population. It is not a campaign to save the Earth, but it is a
campaign to save the human race.

Ecotourism has been defined as responsible travel to natural areas that
conserves the environment and sustains the well being of local people. This is a concept
that has blossomed into one of the fastest growing phenomena in the travel business, with
gains of about 20 to 30 % a year. In 1996, ecotourism grossed over 335 billion dollars
worldwide. A profile of ecotourists compiled by Conservation International shows that they
have a median age of 50, they tend to be professional people in their prime earning years,
and they include equal numbers of men and women.

Environmentalists recognize that some of the few untouched places
left on the planet- rainforests, mountains, exotic islands- are obvious targets for new
tourist development, and that many of these places are in Third World countries, where
revenue from almost any kind of development is likely to be welcomed.

Two areas that are particularly targeted are the Galapagos Islands off the coast of Ecuador and the Monteverde Cloud
Forest Reserve in Costa Rica. Both have been internationally acclaimed for their sound
conservation and tourism strategies. Both have been blessed by their relative
inaccessability, careful monitoring by scientists, well-trained guides, and concerned
local communities. Over the last decade, however, as a tourist explosion has brought world
attention and new funds to both the Galapagos and Monteverde, they have been viewed as
models- they also may be warning lights signaling danger from tourism that expands too
rapidly, without sufficient planning or government and community control,

The danger is not only that tourism will happen in these places that
are perfect for development. There is the additional danger that these areas will be
developed by other so called nonsustainable industries such as logging or mining. To meet
those threats, environmentalists and concerned members of the tourism industry have
addressed the problem of ensuring that ecotourism can become a valid economic alternative
for developers, tour organizers, and other participants.

Promoters of alternative tourism point to its contribution to
economic growth, such as providing developing nations with badly
needed foreign captial and infrastructure. A survey by World Wildlife Fund's Elizabeth Boo
indicates that nature travelers spend more than recreational travelers. Also ecotourism
can raise the environmental consciousness of participants and protect what Barbara Johnson
calls "wilderness, wildlife, and wild people" from destructive development.

There are many problems that worry conservationists. One is the
growing number of nature tourists will dmage the very environments they seek to
appreciate, as they already have in the mountains of Nepal and on the reefs of the
Caribbean. In the Galapagos Islands, the number of wildlife enthusiasts arriving in cruise
ships exceeded by 100% the governments limit. The effect has been profound. According to
Gregory Miller, The Nature Conservancy's regional director for South America, "the
Galapagos Islands are now seeing greater incidences of tramped vegetation and animal
behavior modification, altered volcanic features, and land and waterborne pollution."

Another problem facing the ecotourism industry is the ethics of some
nature tour operators. "Nature tourism cannot be called ecotourism unless it advances
conservation," says Elizabeth Boo. Yet some operators who advertise themselves as
ecotourists do little to preserve fragile environments or to respect native cultures.
There is a need within the industry for concrete standards by which consumers can judge
the quality of tour operators. Of 34 ecotours contacted, 27 said they do not give
environmental concerns a high prioriy. For example, in the Galapagos Islands, all the
boats dump sewage right into the ocean.

On the economic front, the potential of ecotourism is enormous but
the economic reality of nature travel is falling short of its
potential. Of the revenues reaped by general travel in developing countries, over half is
"leaked" back into developed countries. Ecotourism is an unstable and unreliable
source of income, dependent on outside factors such as fluctuations in the world economy
and the price of oil. Moreover, the pressure of debt and the need for short-term revenue
may override environmental objectives.

One of the main problems I discussed was the ethics of certain
nature operators. A way to get rid of these operators is tp promote and encourage others
to blow the whistle on those operators who violate certain guidelines. Not every crooked
operator is going to be caught, therefore many ecotourists must be educated on how to
choose a "true" ecotour who follows al the guidelines. The ecotourists need to
ask ecotour agencies many questions concerning their nature operator such as: are local
people employed as guides, does the tour operator donate money to help the local
environment, doe sthe group stay in locally owned lodges, how is trash disposed of and are
travelers encouraged to contribute to local conservation efforts.

I am also going to relate ecotourism to incentives. There are many
incentives that promote ecotourism over traditional tourism. this is supported by the fact
that 85% of travelers in a 1991 study claimed they were willing to pay more to travel
companies that preserve the environment. One example of an incentive that promotes
ecotourism is the opportunity people have to see native plants and animals. Most countries
allow only ecotourists guided by a licensed ecotour to see these certain fragile
ecosystems. Since this is such a great opportunity, most people will engage in ecotourism
for the sole reason of interacting with the natural environment. This can be harmful
because many people engage in ecotourism just so they can be involved with native
biodiversity which proves that not everyone engaging in ecotourism is genuinely concerned
with preserving the environment.

Lastly, I am going to relate ecotourism to the Tragedy of The Commons. If
enough people engage in a specific activity (even if it is ecotourism), their activities
are still going to have severe consequences. People tend to think they present no danger
if they are part of an ecotourist group guided by an ecotour. Actually, these people
(without knowing) may be the biggest threat to fragile and vulnerable ecosystems. Since
ecotourism has growm so much in the past decade, more people are engaging in it. This
results in the destruction of certain native animals and plants. Many people need to
realize that the activities they are involved in currently may cause harmful effects in
the future. This is hard for people to grasp and therefore ignored the majority of the
time. The only the environment is going to be preserved for the future is if people begin
to realize the dangers their activities present- even if they are involved in ecotourism.
People also need to realize that their presence in a place is going to have an impact,
both environmental and cultural. They then need to ensure the impact is going to be
positive.

Although ecotourism helps economic conditions of certain countries,
it also has devastating consequences which have more of an impact on the environment.
People need to try and prevent these consequences before the environment is completely
destroyed.

The United States Air Force has plans to acquire land in the
southwestern region of Idaho, and eastern Oregon, for the purpose of building a bombing
range for the neighboring Air Base in Mountain Home, Idaho. The community of the district,
in which the area is, Owyhee County, is strongly opposed to the development of the range,
for reasons stemming from the significance of the land to the area and its heritage. The
military and the Governor of the state of Idaho, view this proposal as a way to save the
Air Base from closing down. This has been in debate for several years, starting back in
1988, when the first proposal was instituted. These proposals have met with much
opposition from not only those who live in the area, but from a wide variety of
environmental groups. The proposal by the Air Force has met with very strict regulations
and has been reissued several times for lack of planning, lack of seeking alternate
solutions, and lack of congressional approval. All of these factors have played a major
role in the halting of these attempts to strip the area of its land, but also the
contributions of the residents of the county have also played a key role. They have
written letters and sought the support of political figures in the fight to save the land.
The issue is back on the table, and once again the fight continues.

In the paper, I have looked at the policies that held by the U.S.
Military and the Air Force concerning the environment and land conservation as well. The
policies that they institute carry with them very homocentric ideals and values,
suggesting that the military has the right to use this land for its advancements. They
have implemented various ways of looking into land acquisition, ranging from computer
models of before and after images, representing the overall impact that the area
experience; to getting in touch with the community within the area proposed and seeking
their advice in finding an appropriate place and time for the land acquisition. The
military has implemented various programs such as Environment, Safety, and Occupational
Health Initiatives, that strive to continue the use of land, but at a more cost-effective
rate, and with more acknowledgements of the environment and the resources within it. This
approach, seeks to fulfill the needs of the military more than it does the needs within
the environment and the community within, whether they be human or not.

I also looked at the environmentalists and the policies that they
have put forth in the area of land acquisition. The Sierra Club has written out a document
that presents a list of guidelines that must be met with regards to the land and its use.
They offer solutions that try to accommodate the interest groups as well as the
institutions seeking to expand. They suggest four guidelines, highlighted by one that
suggests that for all land taken away, some land should be given back in the same
environment. This is a very important idea, because, as stated before it satisfies
everyone. The community is satisfied about not losing land, and the military is satisfied
that it can continue its progress.

I also looked at the aspect of community management in the area of
land conservation and found some very strong support for its success with regard to this
topic. The land is clearly defined, public, and has clear boundaries. The community
surrounding the area is very much involved in the protection of the land and the
continuation of the ecological diversity within the environment. They are exhibiting a
very strong value system, one that is ecocentric, and seeks to protect that land. The
success rate in the past of community management has also been very high with respects to
land management. The community's high value on the land, coupled with its ecocentric
values, have defeated the proposal in the past as well as bringing strong support from
outside the area into the issue. The community management within the military was also
discussed and seen from a different point of view. The military's view of community
management is one of seeking out the community and bringing it closer to the government in
the decision making process.

At the same time as China was attempting to quickly modernize during in
the 1950's to the 1970's it was also creating a variety of environmental problems. Forty
years later its government and people are left to deal with the consequences.
Additionally, an already numerous population began to grow drastically during the 1960's
and 1970's. In 1947 China's population was 500 million, while in 1970 it had grown to
roughly 1 billion (Rosenberg & Jing, 1996). With such a large and growing population
China has the potential to greatly impact the environmental state of the earth. Presently
there are 1.2 billion people living in China, which account for roughly 25 percent of the
world's population (Shaoxiang, 1995; Rosenberg & Jing, 1996). Population alone may not
be enough to have such an impact on the earth, but in China this is coupled with rapid and
intensive industrialization. Similar to the effects in other industrialized countries
China's industrialism resulted in a great deal of pollution.

As a means of curbing the alarming
population growth in the 1960's and 1970's the Chinese government decided to implement a
controversial birth control policy. Afraid that they would be producing more people than
their nation could support they mandated that only one child be born per family. This
regulation began in January of 1979 and was appropriately termed the One Child Policy. China's One Child Policy has had three major impacts
on society. The first is the concern that this new generation of only children will grow
up spoiled and self-centered. Earlier studies were wholly in support of the little emperor
syndrome, but some later studies have found contrary results, in fact even positive
effects of only child families. The second is the drastic differences between rural and
urban adherence to the policy. People living in the rural areas of China make up nearly 75
percent of the population (Rosenberg & Jing, 1996) so their compliance or
non-compliance, as the case may be, is very influential. Interestingly, research has shown
that both enforcement and adherence to the One Child Policy is lower in rural areas than
in the urban areas. The third major impact of the One Child Policy on society is the huge
problem of female infanticide. Males are of great importance to the Chinese culture and
tradition. As a result, many couples have ended up resorting to abortion and killing of
female infants in order to produce one male heir. Each of these three societal impacts has
the potential to further influence the environment. Due to the fact that they have been
doted on and catered to by their family what they expect from others may differ from the
expectations of a child with siblings. They may end up being egocentric (or self-centered)
and thus care little for the state of the environment. The second concern has to do with
rural verse urban adherence to the One Child Policy. Rural areas are both less regulated
and have a much lower compliance rate than that of urban couples. Thus they are producing
more children whose values and compliance with the policy will most likely match that of
their parents. In other words, they will also need multiple children for the same reasons
as their parents did. Finally, there is the growing problem of female infanticide which
has many serious problems and implications in and of itself. Interestingly, it may seem as
though this may actually have the opposite effect on the environment. The number of
children born may actually decrease somewhat because there are fewer women to give birth.
As a result these fewer children will produce that much less of an effect on the
environment.

The One Child Policy was an attempt by the Chinese government to
curtail the large strain on their resources they were certain to experience in the coming
years. The inconsistencies in enforcement have resulted in a higher population growth than
the Chinese government predicted. As we have seen, these same inconsistencies may in fact
lead to further environmental degradation. Chinese officials need to consider the
tremendous impact that its rural population could potentially have on society and the environment.
Whatever the outcome it is certain that the One Child policy will have significant effects
on Chinese society, its citizens and its environment.

Works Cited

Li, J. (1995). China's One Child Policy: How and How Well
Has It Worked? A Case Study of Hebei Province, 1979-88. Population and Development
Review,
21, 563-584.

Rosenberg, B.G . & Jing, Q. (1996, Fall). A Revolution in Family
Life: The Political and Social Structural Impact of China's One Child Policy. Journal
of Social Issues, 52, 51-68.

Shaoxiang, N. (1995, Spring). China: A Sleeping Giant Awakes to
Environment. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, 10, 132-135.

As the world's population continues to expand, additional strain is
being placed on Earth's energy resources. Current energy consumption patterns have had
adverse impacts on the environment it is necessary not only to change consumption
patterns, but to develop and use alternative energy sources. By changing current
attitudes, consumption patterns of fuel sources, and usage of environmentally damaging
fossil fuels. Our population can achieve substantial growth, aggressive education and
marketing strategies can be used to help implement a solution which will allow humankind
and the environment to have a feasible existence.

There are a variety of alternative energy sources currently
available. Sources such as hydroelectric, wind, solar, biomass, refuse based and nuclear
power to an extent are much more environment friendly than coal, natural gas, and
petroleum. The United States has 5% of the world's population, but accounts for over 20%
of the world's primary energy. In order to fulfill our responsibility, the U.S. is
obligated to develop these technologies and compel other countries to follow suit.

When examining energy resource usage, it is important to note the
costs and benefits of each source. Current consumption patterns are reinforced by the fact
that fossil fuels have been widely used for centuries. Therefore, distribution systems,
resource extraction and resource allocation have been in place for years. The renewable
energy industries are still in their infancy and have yet to be fully accessed. The upside
to this is that as burgeoning industries, there is a potential for job creation. Although
the technology is expensive, energy sources are inexpensive, even free. The fossil fuels
have contributed mightily to the greenhouse gas problems we currently
face. Renewable fuel sources contribute far less to environmental delay. Nuclear power
generates a substantial amount of power with minimal contribution to the greenhouse
effect, but other side effects of nuclear power have come under fire for their adverse
impact.

In order to begin to change consumption patterns, it is imperative
that our society understands the value and necessity of energy efficiency. Additionally,
we need to make better usage of current alternative energy sources. If usage of fossil
fuels is discouraged by limiting government subsidies, tax breaks, and research funding,
this money can be shifted towards developing new energy technologies. Development of these
other areas has many advantages aside from alleviating some environmental stressers.

If renewable energy technologies are mastered, sustainable growth
can be encouraged. New energy sources can provide electricity to people who do not
currently have it. It is easy to see the financial and economic advantages to this
situation. By staying on the cutting edge, it will be possible to market both energy and
technology to other countries. Additionally, this will help establish the U.S. as the
forerunner for providing energy and for setting an example of efficiency to other nations.
The U.S. is a powerful and influential country, and this can be used to further
environmental causes.

By applying frameworks of influence, it may be possible to change
attitudes towards a more ecological approach. By selling people on the need for behavioral
change towards the environment, need satisfaction will occur. Stressing financial and
economic benefits is a successful means of initiating change. By using a multifaceted
approach combining psychological, financial, economic and environmental principles, it
will be possible to support substantial growth as Earth nears the 21st century.

The World Wide Web, as an emerging technology and broadcast medium,
has been a relatively new craze both in the United States and abroad. This new medium
allows individuals, groups, companies, and governments to distribute many types of
information to vast numbers of people. This ability to distribute text, pictures, video,
spoken word and more through a single source makes this technology so powerful. The source
through which everything is broadcasted is a web page. Using a new programming language
called hyper-text markup language( HTML), along with other new programming languages such
as JAVA, different media are brought together and displayed on a computer screen. The
software that displays the web page is called a browser and, through competition, can be
found free of charge. Since most computers sold today come with all the necessary
components to access the World Wide Web, it is becoming easier for any and every computer
owner to access this new wealth of information.

Many organizations are beginning to use this new medium to get their
cause broadcasted to the world. Taking notice are many environmental groups. They are
finding that their previously hard to reach multinational span of members can now easily
and quickly be reached, coordinated, and placed into action with the help of the World
Wide Web. With the price of a new computer it is clear to see that buyers are of the
economic middle class and higher and this is the traditional target of, and logical
contributor to, environmental groups. In the following, I plan to examine two groups and
how they use the World Wide Web to broadcast their message and gain supporters and how
they, knowingly or not, use psychological principles to accomplish this.

The contents of the Greenpeace web site range from current news items to contacting the
organization and financial support. Upon first arriving at the web site, the greenpeace
name appears along with multiple drop down menus that provide links to all aspects of the
site in an easy to read and visually appealing manner. Below that are the two of the
latest issues that the organization is combating. At the bottom of the page are more
issues that are important campaigns for the group with links to detailed information
including the problem, any findings that Greenpeace has uncovered, and the direction that
and remedies that Greenpeace believes should be taken. Greenpeace is very fortunate in
that the countries in which it has offices and support are the same ones in which the
World Wide Web is also taking hold. On the Greenpeace web site, they list twenty five
countries that have national offices and of those, eighteen have web sites. This close
correlation shows that not only is this new technology taking hold, but is seen as an
asset and viable means to connect with it's members. In using this technology Greenpeace
shows the many ways this organization displays that is a good place to put your money and
that it is making tremendous strides for the environment. There are five ways that
Greenpeace portrays it's presence and power within their web site. Of these five, two were
gave great insight into how this is done. First, there is a section on their web site that
describes the ships that greenpeace owns and some of their recent voyages. This gives the
member a chance to see his money in action and also provides a possibility for the member
to get involved if the campaign is in or around is his home. Contact can be done through
traditional means, telephone, mail, or group meeting, or via email contact which is found
within the web site. Second, for the prospective member or person at large, this page
clearly shows the power of this group. This group clearly is more than a haphazard group
of people who get together over dinner and chat about issues facing the environment. This
is a world wide force to be reckoned with. Second, this organization hires consultants,
operates laboratories and has in it's ranks, qualified and highly educated personnel.
These sources make their arguments sound not only accurate, but scientifically based and
backed. The use of authority is clearly beneficial to their cause, whether accurate or
not, and further shows that they have the money and resources to tackle any environmental
problem (Cialdini, 1984). Many of these issues are presented one-sided and in such a
manner that the reader thinks these problems are short term and as such need immediate
attention, money and support.

On the other end of the environmental spectrum is a group called EarthFirst!
The web site of this group is small in comparison to the one held by greenpeace, but it is
effective all the same. When first seeing this web site, a whole new view is portrayed.
The opening page is not elegant, nor does it have the bells and whistles of the new
technologies. Instead, it has a one sentence mission statement, a picture gallery, an
archive of articles and finally a list of relevant links to other information. The main
beliefs of this group are clearly spelled out in an approximately two page description of
their beliefs, goals and means of action. In this one document they recruit, explain their
actions, and make claims as to why their group is apart from the rest. Although short,
this section is not meant to be full of fluff and nonsense. This group is straightforward
in spelling out their beliefs and how it goes about this. The shortness of this page is a
direct parallel to the movement's overall mission. One of the many ways that this group
influences outsiders is the use of the foot-in-the-door technique. Through clever writing
this radical group presents itself in a very mainstream manner that relaxes the reader and
redefines the group's image. The photo gallery is an effective means by which they can
increase commitment in new or prospective members and provide social proof that others are
taking action against in a case where the environment needs assistance (Cialdini, 1984).
This issue, forest destruction, is very effective since it is well publicized and widely
known by the general public. This continual tie to the everyday person again diminishes
the radical representation that this group carries. Overall, I think this web site was
created with one goal, to reduce the negative stigma that surrounds them. Within this they
recruit others, aire their beliefs and further their cause.

Both sites present themselves in a productive, efficient, and
positive way. They each promote their cause and belief structure in order to improve their
image in the general public. Since no environmental group is fully accepted by every
sector of society, they all need to work on public relations. There is no better way to do
this than through a web page that can be accessed from anywhere in the world. The
information does not need to be first asked for and then sent to an interested party, they
may just retrieve it from the web page. This quick delivery of multiple types of
information is the new and cost effective means to get the message across, not to mention
an environmentally friendly reduction in paper, ink, stamps, adhesive, staples, and other
materials.

Marianna
Panova: Why Do We Say "Mother Nature"? Ecofeminist
perspective on the roots of Modern environmental problems

One of the firsts to recognize
the relationship between violation of women's rights and environmental problems was
Rosemary Radford Ruether. In her work "New Woman/New Earth" in 1975, she
declared the necessity for women to recognize that unless society would step aside from
the behavioral model of domination, there could be neither any liberation for women, or
enhancement of environmental protection. She called for united effort of environmental and
women's rights movements that would serve the purpose of "a radical reshaping of the
basic souci-economic relations and the underlying values of this [modern industrial]
society". The term "ecofeminism" introduced by Francoise d'Eaubonne in
1974, comes from the combination of "ecology" and "feminism,"
reflecting a joint perspective on human domination of nature and men's domination over
women.

In its attempt to build a conceptual framework alternative
to the current oppressive patriarchal setting, ecofeminism provides an alternative
interpretation of the history of human civilization, especially Western culture. In doing
so ecofeminist scholars seek for the roots of dualism, a widely practiced philosophical
approach, as well as possibilities for alternative value systems that would allow for
liberation of women and the environment. One of the widely accepted ecofeminism
standpoints on the human history is described by Rosemary Radford Ruether in her book
"Women Healing Earth." According to the ecofeminist interpretation humans of the
hunter-gathering stages lived in "egalitarian classes societies." The main
behavioral model was the one of cooperation, because only through mutual support could the
human societies survive. In the sixth through third millennia BCE nomadic tribes extended
their conquests to the West. These tribes imposed patriarchal social structure with a
value system dominated by the ideas of war, aggression, and competition. Thus the early
egalitarian society turned into one of "militarized domination".

These conquests not only changed the
social structure of Western society, but also caused a shift in religious preferences. In
the egalitarian system women were seen as life-givers, the nurturers, the primary food
gatherers and the inventors of agriculture. Due to these early social roles of women,
humans created the female Goddess, the first personification of the Mystery. Indian,
Assyrian and Babylonian mythology provides us with examples of worshiping a sacred Mother.
Mediterranean civilizations continued these beliefs as can be found in Greek and Jewish
folklore. The Nomadic tribes brought a different concept of the divine. Their God was
male, both a warrior and ruler over the forces of nature. Establishment of a new set of
religious beliefs soon became a powerful tool in exposing a patriarchal system. It is
useful to note that this story of the human history is best to be seen as a myth rooted in
the ancient times. Ruether calls it: a simplified and selective reflection (like any myth)
of a complex process - a process by which humans shaped patriarchal social and
religious-ideological hierarchies and gradually suppressed earlier egalitarian societies,
which were more interdependent with their bioregional environments.

Many ecofeminists come to a conclusion that in order to solve present
environmental problems Western society should turn to its egalitarian roots and rediscover
the concept of Goddess. However, it is important to point out that such
""psycho-spiritual" reconnection with women's bodies and natural cycles
cannot be the only purpose of ecofeminism. It is also true, that ecofeminism is not a
simple combination of ecology and feminism. As stated in one of the ecofeminist web sites,
Eve On Line:
the kaleidoscopic lens of ecofeminism includes a prepatriarchal historical analysis, an
embracement of spirituality, and a commitment to challenging racism, classism,
imperialism, heterosexism, ageism, ableism, anthropocentrism, speciesism and other forms
of oppression.

This paper is not intended for discussion of
all the above stated issues. The goals of the essay are to analyze the roots of humans
overexploitation of the environment due to the stereotype that women are closer to nature
than man.

One of the possible solutions for the environmental problems is
changing the perception of the environment as an all-giving and ever-loving mother. In
order for the incentives for the environmental protection to work, modern society has to
come to a new understanding of the nature. The new definition must be developed that would
include the ideas of humans being a part of nature. In other words "we must remember
the chemical connection between ourselves and the stars". It is necessary to
understand that there is no dichotomy between the women being closer to nature and women
being fully cultural beings. Catherine Roach in her article "Loving Your Mother: On
the Woman-Nature Relation" points out that no one can be closer or further away from
nature, human beings are made of the same atoms as any other element of the biosphere or
universe in general (1996). Humans are interconnected with every other matter of nature.

Imagine yourself poor and hungry--living in no more than a shanty
with a mat on the floor for your bed. You wander the village streets daily, looking for
food and fuel to cook whatever you may find. Your stomach rumbles and you grow dizzy with
each step. Dazzling streams and forests surround you. The sun illuminates the umbrella of
leaves above, but you cannot focus on the beauty. You seek to survive. Living for today,
often short-sighted, the forests and land become resources to continue your existence, not
a treasure to protect for the future. What does a hole in the ozone layer mean to you when
all you can think about is the hole in your stomach and your children's stomachs? A large
corporation comes to offer you money to cut down the trees that surround you and to mine
the rocks and minerals below the soil. They promise advances--better homes and schools.
The pay is low, but it means food and so-called progress. You willingly accept, only to
find years later, you may have made progress in technology, but along with the development
comes a new set of problems. The pristine environment no longer exists; pollution abounds
and the land is destroyed.

This is the plight of many poor nations struggling to develop into
wealthy, productive areas. All around the globe, third world countries are facing the same
dilemma: remain surrounded by natural beauty and a healthy environment, but poor, or
develop in order to find wealth, but risk pollution and destruction of the environment in
the process. Most poor nations would willingly tolerate some pollution to eliminate the
poverty that prevails, yet rich nations have shunned their progress, despising the destruction of the rainforests
and wildlife. The choice comes down to lifting people out of poverty or preserving the
environment. Some feel that through sustainable development a compromise can be reached so
that both goals can be obtained.

Sustainable
development involves meeting the needs of the present without diminishing the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs. Recognizing that the goal of poor nations
in using their natural resources to develop is to escape the poverty trap, the only way to
save the environment is to help people overcome the pitfalls of poverty such as
homelessness, lack of education, lack of health care, and overpopulation
so there is no need to degrade the environment.

There have been many proposals concerning the best way to encourage
sustainable development, including increased education, availability of business assets,
and encouragement of religious values, just to name a few. However, the most important
aspect of sustainable development is remembering that while the development and
environmental destruction may be occurring in the third world, the issues at hand are not
confined to the poor nations. Balancing development and pollution with environmental
protection affects everyone globally--both rich and poor. We are in this together and the
only way to achieve sustainability will be to work together at a global level.

There are many instances of inequity in current American
society. Many groups of people are treated in different ways (some are beneficial and some
are not) depending upon the various characteristics of the group. Unfortunately minority
groups and the poor in American society often face some of the worst hardships. In years
past these groups had to deal with civil rights discrimination and other types of racism.
While many groups are still dealing with these old problems, new forms of discrimination
have come to light. Environmental
racism is one such form of discrimination facing minority groups today. Environmental
racism adversely affects the quality of life of millions of Americans per year, but the
situation has yet to be brought under control. This analysis will discuss four major areas
on the topic of environmental racism. The first section will be devoted to defining
environmental racism, including problems with its definition and examples of the
phenomena. The second section will examine the materials involved in the process, the
victims, and the perpetrators. The third section will be concerned with the various laws
that apply to waste management and human equality and discuss the manner in which these
laws apply to environmental racism. Finally there will be a discussion of
solutions&mdash;possible remedies for the situation.

A succinct definition of racism is "racial prejudice plus
power". When applied to environmental concerns, prejudice plus the exploitation of a
minority, or overt discrimination based on race in an environmental context, is
environmental racism. This definition carries a requirement of discriminatory intent
(Kriesel et. al., 1996). Robert Bullard, a prominent urban sociologist, defines
environmental racism as "any environmental policy, practice, or directive that,
intentionally or unintentionally, differentially impacts or disadvantages individuals,
groups, or communities based on race or color; as well as the exclusionary and restrictive
practices that limit the participation by people of color in decision making boards,
commissions, and staffs" (Brown, 1993). Bullard describes aversive racism, which
includes unconscious actions with an evident impact on racial groups. Aversive racism is
the greater exposure to environmental risk when it is correlated with higher populations
of racial minorities (Kriesel et. al, 1996). Empirical studies have shown that minorities
face significant discrimination in the siting of noxious facilities and disproportionate
exposure to various environmental risks (Kriesel, et. al., 1996). The presence of
uncontrolled toxic waste sites in American communities is more prevalent than may be
expected; fifty percent of all Americans live in communities with uncontrolled sites.
Minority communities, however, are affected to a greater degree: three of every five
African Americans and Hispanics live in communities with uncontrolled toxic waste sites.
The average minority population is four times greater in areas with UTW sites, than in
communities without such facilities. Thus, African Americans in particular are strikingly
over-represented in the populations of metropolitan areas with the largest number of
uncontrolled toxic waste sites (Godsil, 1991).

The planners are the social agent that should be working
for the right of the minority group to live in a clean/non-hazardous community. However,
they are often a large part of the problem. The planner must be educated in not only
politics and business administration, but also environmental and diversity awareness.
Anyone who works with land, air, or water issues must discuss and develop the principles
involved in their decision making processes. The public needs disclosure and
accountability of the decisions being made which affect the community. The skill of
analysis equity, which includes consideration of growth, equity, ecology, justice, and
community rights, should be developed as an expertise. Those who will conceive develop and
implement future environmental decisions will face conflict and ambiguity. If they are
prepared to solve environmental problems in an enduring way, they must work hand in hand
with the community.

Although it is not difficult to list those corporations and
institutions outside of the government that are committing acts of environmental racism,
the list would be too long to include here. What is important to recognize here is which
institutions and why these institutions commit environmental racism. The institutions
involved in environmental racism are those that produce any hazardous waste. Not all of
these institutions have a malicious intent, but they all have the need to turn high
profits. Although action to produce profits that are illegal are not employed, those
actions which are deemed unethical may still be committed. As described before it is often
hard to prove that corporations dump waste in the communities that they do on the basis of
the race of the community, although the actions are detrimental. However, we do know that
money and politics play an important role, and those involved in waste management find it
politically expedient to site hazardous waste in minority communities. Similarly these
communities tend to be more likely to accept compensation made in exchange for having
hazardous waste placed in their community. Money and profits may be the only motivation
for subjecting communities to environmental hazards (Cole, 1991).

Both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the
Civil Rights Act require evidence that disproportionate exposure is due to intentional
discrimination. However, the regulations by federal agencies that codify a discriminatory
effect of aversive racism may be illegal. The EPA has a regulation that prohibits actions
that would have an effect of subjecting minorities to discrimination without adequate
justification, but under various Civil Rights Act agency regulations, an action having a
discriminatory effect upon a minority may be in violation of federal law (Kriesel, 1996).
The late 1960's and early 1970's saw the enactment at the federal level of major elements
of environmental management. Especially notable were the passage of the National
Environmental Policy Act 1969, the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1970, the Water Pollution
Act Amendments in 1972, the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1973, and the Endanger
Endangered Species Act in 1973. In addition to be given significant implementations
responsibilities under these federal laws states enacted many of their own environmental
laws. For example Pennsylvania's Constitution states that "the people have a right to
clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and
aesthetic values in the environment." Although such environmental rights have been
established at broad national and state levels, exposure to environmental risks vary
dramatically by race and class (Collin et al., 1995).

The Principles for Environmental Justice
adopted at the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit in 1991, lay
the foundation for the Environmental Equity Assessment (EEA). These principles are based
upon the assumption that humans have a right to a healthy environment, defined as being
free from illness and disease spawned from environmental degradation. The purpose of the
EEA is to similar to other programs in that it is designed "to consider all relevant
ecological&hellip;aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social or health
effects" of environmental hazards. The EEA constitutes a methodology that permits the
orderly analysis of relationships that exist between society, resources, and technology,
beyond the single project strategies of current assessment processes (Laituri & Kirby,
1994).

This analysis set out to explore and
examine the way in which environmental racism effects various members of the United States
population. After discussing the social and legal implications of environmental racism
certain possible solutions were discussed. These solutions in themselves cannot solve all
of the issues of environmental racism, but combined together and with an informed and
educated society, there is no reason why this problem should persist.